What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5016589?

The tribunal order states: Kanesha Honey Walker must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5016589?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $3.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.61 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,090.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,529.50 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $3,317.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5016589?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5016589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11233097-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5016589?

The tribunal order states: Kanesha Honey Walker must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5016589?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $3.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.61 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,090.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,529.50 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $3,317.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5016589?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5016589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11233097-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

101A Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5016589 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5016589 — net $7,471.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 26 July 2024 to 09 August 2024	$1,090.00	Rent arrears 26 July 2024 to 09 August 2024
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$230.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$333.50	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,529.50	Rubbish removal
Light bulb and curtain hooks	$3.00	Light bulb and curtain hooks
Repairs to walls and doors	$3,317.75	Repairs to walls and doors
Window repairs	$280.61	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,471.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,471.36

Order

Kanesha Honey Walker must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent for Fox Den Family Trust $7,471.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mrs Marsters and Ms Wehipeihana appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent.
On 26 July 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy, and awarded the landlord rent arrears. The landlord states that the tenant did not vacate the property until 09 August 2024, when the bailiff evicted them. The landlord is claiming rent from 26 July 2024 to 09 August 2024 amounting to $1,090.00. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to that date.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The property consists of three bedrooms, a kitchen, an open plan dining / lounge, bathroom, a separate toilet, a laundry, a carport, and a small garden shed.
The landlord claims that the tenant failed to: i. Leave the interior of the property reasonably clean and tidy ($460.00), ii. Leave the carpet reasonably clean ($200.00), iii. Leave the grounds reasonably tidy ($333.50), iv. Remove all rubbish ($1,529.00), v. Return the keys ($230.00), vi. Account for missing chattels namely lights blubs and curtains hooks ($40.00).
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The landlord has produced a pre tenancy checklist and photographs showing the property at the end of the tenancy.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet and the grounds, and to remove all rubbish. It appears there was no cleaning attempted by the tenant. The carpet was left soiled and stained. The tenant kept a dog without consent, which dug holes in the lawn, there was a significant amount of rubbish left, requiring the landlord to take seven trailer loads to the waste transfer station. The amounts claimed are reasonable in the circumstances and awarded in full.
The tenant changed the locks and added a lock to an external gate. No keys were returned to the landlord. The amount claimed for key and lock replacement is awarded.
The end of tenancy photographs shows only one missing light bulb in the lounge. The balance of the claim for curtain hooks is declined, as I am not satisfied based on the evidence this is more than fair wear and tear.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to cupboard doors, a ranchslider window, walls, and doors, and two callouts to unblock the sink.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B (1) of the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Unblocking the sink and rehanging kitchen cupboards.
The landlord is claiming $121.25 and $161.25 for plumbers’ callouts to the property on 28 March 2022 and 30 September 2024, to unblock the kitchen sink. The landlord states that the pipe from the sink became blocked because the tenant was pouring fat down the plughole.
There is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant is liable. Furthermore, the callout on 30 September 2024 occurred after the end of the tenancy.
During the tenancy, the landlord rehung kitchen cupboard doors which they say had likely been damaged by the tenant’s young children swinging on them. However, there are no photographs of the damaged doors produced. There is insufficient evidence, and this portion of the claim is also declined. Wall and doors
The landlord has produced photographs showing damage to walls and doors throughout the property, as well as an area of exterior cladding and some steps into the property. Two internal doors have been extensively damaged. The damage to walls consists of holes of various sizes. Some have been partially repaired by the tenant although the repair is rough.
No photographs showing the property at the commencement of the tenancy have been produced. The pre tenancy checklist notes pre-existing damage consisting of minor scuff marks and paint chips to walls throughout the property. The doors, steps, and cladding were undamaged.
The landlord’s claim is for damage over and above that pre-existing.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has produced two invoices. The first invoice is for $2,110.25 and covers the doors, repairing walls, and then repainting the damaged areas only. It also includes repairing the steps and the cladding.
The landlord states the paint was difficult to match and repainting only the damaged area resulted in a patchy appearance. The second invoice is for $1,725.00 and covers repainting each of the affected walls.
I award the amount claimed to repair the damage. The property is approximately 30 years old and had pre-existing damage. Taking into account betterment I reduce the painting claim by 30% and award the landlord $1,207.50. The total amount awarded to repair damage is $3,317.75. Ranchslider window
The landlord has produced a photograph showing damage to the ranchslider window, which was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The amount claimed is awarded. Costs
Because Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent for Fox Den Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, and is entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it, and no orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5016589 — net $7,471.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 26 July 2024 to 09 August 2024	$1,090.00	Rent arrears 26 July 2024 to 09 August 2024
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$230.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$333.50	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,529.50	Rubbish removal
Light bulb and curtain hooks	$3.00	Light bulb and curtain hooks
Repairs to walls and doors	$3,317.75	Repairs to walls and doors
Window repairs	$280.61	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,471.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,471.36

Order

Kanesha Honey Walker must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent for Fox Den Family Trust $7,471.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mrs Marsters and Ms Wehipeihana appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent.
On 26 July 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy, and awarded the landlord rent arrears. The landlord states that the tenant did not vacate the property until 09 August 2024, when the bailiff evicted them. The landlord is claiming rent from 26 July 2024 to 09 August 2024 amounting to $1,090.00. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to that date.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The property consists of three bedrooms, a kitchen, an open plan dining / lounge, bathroom, a separate toilet, a laundry, a carport, and a small garden shed.
The landlord claims that the tenant failed to: i. Leave the interior of the property reasonably clean and tidy ($460.00), ii. Leave the carpet reasonably clean ($200.00), iii. Leave the grounds reasonably tidy ($333.50), iv. Remove all rubbish ($1,529.00), v. Return the keys ($230.00), vi. Account for missing chattels namely lights blubs and curtains hooks ($40.00).
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The landlord has produced a pre tenancy checklist and photographs showing the property at the end of the tenancy.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet and the grounds, and to remove all rubbish. It appears there was no cleaning attempted by the tenant. The carpet was left soiled and stained. The tenant kept a dog without consent, which dug holes in the lawn, there was a significant amount of rubbish left, requiring the landlord to take seven trailer loads to the waste transfer station. The amounts claimed are reasonable in the circumstances and awarded in full.
The tenant changed the locks and added a lock to an external gate. No keys were returned to the landlord. The amount claimed for key and lock replacement is awarded.
The end of tenancy photographs shows only one missing light bulb in the lounge. The balance of the claim for curtain hooks is declined, as I am not satisfied based on the evidence this is more than fair wear and tear.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to cupboard doors, a ranchslider window, walls, and doors, and two callouts to unblock the sink.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B (1) of the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Unblocking the sink and rehanging kitchen cupboards.
The landlord is claiming $121.25 and $161.25 for plumbers’ callouts to the property on 28 March 2022 and 30 September 2024, to unblock the kitchen sink. The landlord states that the pipe from the sink became blocked because the tenant was pouring fat down the plughole.
There is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant is liable. Furthermore, the callout on 30 September 2024 occurred after the end of the tenancy.
During the tenancy, the landlord rehung kitchen cupboard doors which they say had likely been damaged by the tenant’s young children swinging on them. However, there are no photographs of the damaged doors produced. There is insufficient evidence, and this portion of the claim is also declined. Wall and doors
The landlord has produced photographs showing damage to walls and doors throughout the property, as well as an area of exterior cladding and some steps into the property. Two internal doors have been extensively damaged. The damage to walls consists of holes of various sizes. Some have been partially repaired by the tenant although the repair is rough.
No photographs showing the property at the commencement of the tenancy have been produced. The pre tenancy checklist notes pre-existing damage consisting of minor scuff marks and paint chips to walls throughout the property. The doors, steps, and cladding were undamaged.
The landlord’s claim is for damage over and above that pre-existing.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has produced two invoices. The first invoice is for $2,110.25 and covers the doors, repairing walls, and then repainting the damaged areas only. It also includes repairing the steps and the cladding.
The landlord states the paint was difficult to match and repainting only the damaged area resulted in a patchy appearance. The second invoice is for $1,725.00 and covers repainting each of the affected walls.
I award the amount claimed to repair the damage. The property is approximately 30 years old and had pre-existing damage. Taking into account betterment I reduce the painting claim by 30% and award the landlord $1,207.50. The total amount awarded to repair damage is $3,317.75. Ranchslider window
The landlord has produced a photograph showing damage to the ranchslider window, which was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The amount claimed is awarded. Costs
Because Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent for Fox Den Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, and is entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it, and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5016589 — Property damage at 101A Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5016589 — Property damage at 101A Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions